X-Message-Number: 8095
From: 
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 11:36:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: CRYONICS emeregence etc

It is really an interesting challenge, when people on opposite sides of an
argument each think the other is missing something simple and obvious, and
neither can make a case persuasive to the other. In politics this might be
attributed to bias or unshakable habit; in science or logic or philosophy one
would hope otherwise. Anyway, let's try a few more locutions.

(One preliminary note: I have never said it is impossible for a simulation to
be conscious or have feeling, nor that the info paradigm is wrong. I have
said that these ideas are unproven, and must remain in doubt until they are
proven; and that there are good reasons for doubting them.)

The info people claim "emergence" explains the (contended) presence of
consciousness and feeling in a simulation, e.g. the Chinese Room or
variations thereof. Sometimes they go into condescending detail to explain
how your brain thinks even though it is made of unthinking neurons, and the
neurons of unthinking molecules, etc. But "emergence" is not a magic wand
that "explains" everything, nor is it a paint that can hide specific cracks;
it must be invoked and used only with due diligence.

For example, the special character and usefulness of a wheel "emerges," from
the conglomeration of atoms comprising it, because of its shape primarily,
and also because of the appropriate cohesiveness of its parts and other
factors. The shape is not a mystery, nor the cohesiveness; it can be
described and understood. If the wheel is deformed into an ellipse, that also
can be described and understood, and its impact on the usefulness of the
artifact assessed.

Now the info folk claim, with COMPLETE vagueness, that "somehow" feeling and
consciousness emerge in the simulation. They assert this while understanding
virtually NOTHING about feeling and consciousness in animals, and with HUGE
gaps in our understanding of the laws of physics as well as biology. They
assert it merely on the PREMISE or AXIOM that information processing is
everything, together with the assumption that a simulation can, in principle,
form a perfect isomorphism with physical reality. The "givens" of the info
folk are not self-evident and they are not proven; they remain in doubt.

Concerning "Chinese Feeling," Metzger says that, if the operator makes a
mistake, that might be equivalent to a neuron misfiring. NOT AT ALL. The
misfiring of a neuron is only a "mistake" from our point of view; in the
operation of our universe it is natural and indeed inevitable. In the Chinese
simulation, however, a mistake by the operator is equivalent to a CHANGE IN
THE LAWS OF NATURE, or at the very least a break in historical continuity; it
comprises the introduction of new and inconsistent data. It might even crash
the whole system.

Of course, the info folk could answer that a simulation is a simulation only
while it is a valid simulation, so my question is irrelevant. But that is not
quite right. Since they claim that simulated events are just as "real" as the
original, it becomes necessary to explain what events in our world correspond
to any possible events in the simulation OR IN AN IMPERFECT SIMULATION. 

Sorry; this has become rambling and disjointed, but I don't have time for
much more now. Just a couple more quickies:

Metzger asks why a simulation of a computation is different from a
computation. It isn't, because a computation is just symbolic in the first
place. But the QUESTION is why a simulation of a PHYSICAL SYSTEM should be
regarded as fully equivalent to the actual system.

Perry indicates that personal preferences cannot be attacked or confirmed as
right or wrong. I repeat that they can--right or wrong from the standpoint of
what values the individual WOULD hold if he applied rigorous logic to well
established premises (concerning natural law and his own biology and personal
history). The only exceptions would be cases where risk/reward considerations
reveal no clear advantage, so it's a toss-up.

Robert Ettinger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8095